Presentation on theme: "2015 PhD and Junior Faculty GEM Workshop Maria Minniti"— Presentation transcript:
2015 PhD and Junior Faculty GEM Workshop Maria Minniti email@example.com
Today’s Agenda: 1:45 – Introduction 2:00 – Developing an International Profile 2:30 – International Entrepreneurship Journals 2:45 – Publishing in International Journals 4:00 - Break 4:15 – Submission & the R&R Process 5:00 – Reviewing for International Journals 5:15 – Good and Bad Research Ideas 5:45 – Workshop ends
A GOOD RESEARCH QUESTION EXPLAINS MECHANISMS “Just because it hasn’t been done, doesn’t make it important” Two types of approach: Deductive: Use logical arguments with support from literature to develop hypotheses or propositions Inductive: Use original empirical evidence to expand on existing theory
The theoretical background is where you should present you review of the literature The review of the literature is not a summary of papers, is a thread to tell your argument. This is how you position it in an existing debate and show that you know what you are talking about You have to show that you contribute to a body of literature using a specific theoretical lens. In other words, you PLUG a gap in a body of literature using another body of literature. You may fill a gap or extend a frontier As a rule of thumb, your dependent variable usually determines the research area you are contributing to Important about the theoretical background:
REVIEWS: THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY (A SURVIVAL GUIDE TO SUCCESSFUL RESUBMISSIONS)
HOW SHOULD YOU FEEL ABOUT AN R&R? A R&R, no matter how weak, is a “huge” open door toward publication Go get a drink and celebrate You always, ALWAYS, accept a R&R Has anybody here received a R&R already?
How should an R&R “look like”? Different disciplines & journals have somewhat different standards. However, all resubmissions should include: Brief cover letter to editor (more on this later) Thank for and highlight praise and encouragement that your paper has received Address each comment you were given separately (it may help to reproduce them) In some cases, when a big overhaul is done, it may help to include a brief paragraph that “repositions” the paper (more on this later) Example:
Dear Professor SO&SO, Thank you for giving me and my coauthors the opportunity to revise and resubmit the paper entitled “Bla bla bla bla" [Here journal name and manuscript number]. We are grateful to you and the reviewers for the helpful comments you have provided. We have incorporated them in the revised draft and we believe we now have a much stronger paper. Below we explain how we addressed each and every comment. We hope you and the reviewers will be pleased with the result of our revisions. Please let us know if you have any questions. We look forward to hearing from you soon. Best regards,
What makes for a good R&R? A good R&R is strategic It’s your R&R and your paper: You have to manage the process A good R&R addresses each and all comments with competence, accuracy, and completeness Note: Timeliness is important (Including for how much you are “into” your own paper) Managing your pipeline: Tradeoff between R&R vs current projects
How should a R&R be approached? All reviewers and comments are created equal The burden of proof is on you A good R&R shows that you take your own work seriously (or nobody else will) Your ultimate “customer” is the editor The response document is very important because: Some reviewers/editors look at the response document more than the paper While the paper is the output, the response document is your conversation (Q&A, seminar?) with the reviewers
What type of R&R can you get and how are they different? Minor revisions (rare at first) Major or substantial revisions (most common) High risk revise and resubmit (here you need to present a coherent message of overall improvement – beyond saying “we did this and changed that”)
What types of reviewer can you get? In general, and regardless of how they express it, reviewers try to think of ways to make your paper better, most of them have been chosen because they know that literature, most of them are not idiots. Thus, take their suggestions seriously, you may actually end up with a better paper. Of course, different type of reviewers exist and these differences may require different types of answers: The good The bad And the ugly Examples:
The Bad Reviewer 2: “While I like the data set and the econometrics is robust, I am very concerned about the theoretical positioning of this paper. The paper focuses on the behavior of black-owned startups in the US. However, it is important to establish how and if the story in the paper applies to other minority groups and to women. Thus, for the paper to be publishable, at the very minimum the authors need to replicate their analysis by segregating their sample into more racial groups and among men and women. This, of course, also require a significant expansion of the literature review and a reconsideration of the discussion and conclusion sections.” Answer: We thank Reviewer 2 for appreciating how our paper fits in the broader context of entrepreneurship research on minority and gender. After careful consideration, however, we have decided to continue limiting our paper to the discussion of black owned startups. We do so because our data are good at capturing two distinctive feature of those startups only, namely the average lower collateral and informal financing available to borrowers. In addition, while generalization is certainly appealing, we are concerned about the space tradeoff between breadth and depth. We have included some comments along the lines suggested by the reviewer in the conclusion where we identify avenue for possible extensions of this paper. For example….
The Ugly Reviewer 3 comments: 1. “This paper is conceptually flawed. The author needs…” 2. “The KFS database has been used inappropriately. The author must…” 3. “There are a number of other serious problems with this paper. In light of the above flaws, however, I will not go into these issues.” Cover to editor: The accompanying response document provides details on how we have addressed each and every comment. Respectfully, we would also like to point out that although Reviewer 3 begins his(her) comments with very negative statements, the substance of his(her) comments is relatively mild. We are confident we were able to address them satisfactorily in our responses.
What types of response can you give? Two basic types: Cooperate (fits most of the times) Stand your ground (make a compelling case why the reviewer is wrong) THIS IS A PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT ISSUE
What sticky situations are you likely to encounter? Reviewers have made conflicting suggestions Reviewer wants you to write a different paper (remember example for “the bad” above) Reviewer request cannot be satisfied (usually deals with data constraints) Example:
Reviewer 1 wrote: “Authors should use the application/denial information that I know their dataset contains to get at availability of credit and also to control for selection effects.” Response: Reviewer 1 makes a very good point. Unfortunately, we cannot address the “application/denial” issue because of the very small sample size. The table below shows that the question was asked only in a subset of years and that only a small number of observations have values. We could run estimates based only on the units with complete information, but the results would be meaningless since they would fall short of the sample size requirement for survival analysis. We were able, however, to control for selection effects by re-estimating our models for the period 2004-2010 after excluding observations who reported “fear of denial”. While dropping those who did not apply for fear of denial reduces the sample‘s size, the reduction is small. Tables 3B and 5B in the Appendix to this document show the new estimates. Results remain very similar to and consistent with those presented in Tables 3 and 5 in the paper. Because of this consistency we have decided to maintain the original formulation in the paper but have included a discussion of the new results as a robustness check.
How should multiple rounds of reviews be handled? Start again from Slide 2 – Repeat as necessary Attention spans are short: Never give information for granted If necessary, ask the editor do his/her job Examples:
R&R – Round 4 In cover letter to editor: We have given Reviewer 2’s last comment serious consideration. While we appreciate his(her) concern, we maintain that the retrofitting of our results to Equation 1 in Minniti and Levesque (2006) is neither necessary nor desirable. In our response to the reviewer below we have articulated our reasons in detail. Since our paper deals with time sensitive topic and data, and both reviewers have now expressed support for the paper except for this last comment from Reviewer 2, we are wondering whether it would be possible for you to give us a quick response on this version of the paper. As you can understand, we are eager to see the paper out. Also, we believe it is important (for us and the journal) that empirical pieces get in print in a timely fashion.
TO SUM UP: A good R&R shows that you take your own work seriously A good R&R is strategic (You have to manage the process) Your ultimate “customer” is the editor A good R&R takes seriously and addresses each and all comments You CAN stand your ground